The Co-Mingling of Bordering Dynamics in the San Diego-Tijuana Cross- Border Metropolis

n° 2016-01 January 2015 WORKING PAPERS The co-mingling of bordering dynamics in the San Diego-Tijuana cross- border metropolis Lawrence A. Herzog 1 Christophe Sohn 2 1 San Diego State University, USA www.liser.lu 2 LISER, Luxembourg LISER Working Papers are intended to make research findings available and stimulate comments and discussion. They have been approved for circulation but are to be considered preliminary. They have not been edited and have not been subject to any peer review. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views of LISER. Errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the author(s). The co-mingling of bordering dynamics in the San Diego-Tijuana cross- border metropolis Lawrence A. Herzog School of Public Affairs, San Diego State University San Diego, California Email: [email protected] Christophe Sohn Department of Urban Development and Mobility Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic research Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg Email: [email protected] Abstract The focus of this paper is on the processes of debordering and rebordering and more specifically on what is happening when both forces encounter and confront their different interests. The hypothesis developed is that the two bordering dynamics are not only contesting each other, they also interact and co-mingle. An analytical framework based on the functional, structural and symbolic dimensions of borders is developed in order to generate hypotheses about how the co-mingling of the two forces takes place specifically on the ground. The case of San Diego-Tijuana demonstrates that the cross-border metropolis in the making is constantly changing and reinventing itself through the encounter of debordering and rebordering and the nesting of one category inside the other. Keywords Debordering, rebordering, cross-border metropolis, San-Diego, Tijuana 1 Introduction Theories of border zones traditionally viewed the border in a binary fashion, in which the physical line had the effect of imposing duality, polarization and separation. At its most basic level, a political boundary was a line drawn across space that caused a division on either side – of political jurisdiction (nation-state), two cultures, two economic levels of well-being. In some parts of the world, these divisions or dualities, continue to accurately portray quite distinct differences – where wealthier nations bump up against less wealthy ones or where very different cultures collide. Yet, in a globalizing world, the space around boundaries has also become far more complex. Responding to this complexity, scholars have moved on from these traditional views of borders/binaries, recognizing that, while borders enclose sovereign governments, since at least the middle of the twentieth century, economic, cultural and other forces transcend national boundaries. The concept of ‘cross-border metropolis’ is emblematic of the changing nature and effects of borders giving rise to processes of cross-border integration, whether in the form of labor markets, trade relationships, residential mobility, tourism flows, cultural exchanges or more complex environments that stimulate innovation (Herzog, 1990). Beyond their role as political institutions that demarcate territorial entities, borders as socio-cultural practices and discourses have an inherently fluid and ambivalent character (Paasi, 1998). While fluctuating between closed or open conditions, borders may simultaneously appear as an obstacle or a protection, a threat or a resource (Herzog and Sohn, 2014). Appearing more dynamic and multifarious, borders have been interpreted not as a line that merely separates two nations and needs to be defended, but as a setting for increasingly complex processes of bordering (Newman, 2006; Van Houtum and van Naerssen, 2002). Understanding borders in terms of social processes has led to a consideration of two contrasting dynamics: debordering and rebordering. Whereas the former suggests openness, exchange and hybridization, the later underlines practices of control, protection and differentiation. In such a bipolar understanding of bordering dynamics, one process is conceived as opposing the other (see notably Coleman, 2005; Stetter, 2005). Although the two bordering dynamics are contesting each other, they also interact. In order to grasp what takes place ‘in-between’ the two extremes of bordering and debordering, we need to deconstruct their binary condition and pay attention to the different and more subtle forces at work within the debordering and rebordering categories, the ways they impact each other, and the outcomes in terms of change and invention. In doing so, this paper aims at scrutinizing the impacts of these dynamics on the ground. More specifically, we focus our analysis on the implications of the debordering/rebordering nexus for spatial planning of cross- border metropolitan regions. Cross-border metropolises are indeed the place where the impacts of the two forces are likely to be the most significant. On the one hand, the emergence of cross- border metropolises as dynamic places of demographic and economic growth as well as socio- cultural encounters is directly linked to the opening of borders and the effects induced by economic integration and globalization (Herzog, 1990; Sohn, 2014). On the other, national security rebordering trends are targeting these transnational urban spaces crisscrossed by cross- border mobilities of capital, people, goods and practices. Border securitization and policing are thus directly threatening the very existence of cross-border metropolises. Given its emblematic 2 status as cross-border metropolis and the significance of bordering dynamics that have occurred along the U.S.-Mexico border during the last two decades, the case of San Diego-Tijuana constitutes our focal point in this paper. The example of San Diego-Tijuana shows notably how debordering initiatives tend to re-emerge after the 9/11 security-led rebordering and the fencing of the border and how the interaction and co-mingling of the two forces shape the trajectory of the cross-border metropolis. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The first section discusses the need to go beyond a dichotomous understanding of bordering dynamics and introduces an analytical framework that conceives three main patterns of interaction. The second section presents the case study investigated and highlights its bordering trajectories. In the third section, significant examples of bordering co-mingling are presented. The last section offers some final reflections. Unpacking the notions of rebordering and debordering As analytical categories aimed at grasping the ambivalent and processual dimension inherent to borders, debordering and rebordering are often presented as separate processes marked by a fundamental state of conflict. Whereas the former highlights the opening of a border, the disabling of controls or the blurring of the differences between social and spatial entities and the mental categories associated to them, the later signifies, on the contrary, the controlling of movements and flows and the construction of categories and distinctions that structure social and spatial divisions. While useful for structuring the discussion, such binary thinking does not capture the full complexity of the processes at work. As bordering dynamics are formed via social and historical processes, they are open-ended and in a constant state of being transformed. This suggests that debordering and rebordering are not part of a zero-sum game; one does not simply negate the other. So, when rebordering occurs after a phase of debordering (or vice-versa), it is not simply a return to the state of ‘origin’. Of course, there are times when the relationship between the two forces clearly favors one at the expense of the other (e.g., post 9/11 rebordering). But even in these rather extreme circumstances, one bordering dynamic cannot be deployed without contestation and resistance driven by the opposite dynamic. Instead, we believe debordering and rebordering are intimately linked. When one dynamic is mobilized, the other one remains as a potential powerful force, inherently present, and often having a critical impact. Thus, while bordering dynamics often seem to be in a fundamental state of conflict, they also interact and influence each other. It is as if there was an organic tension between the two. In order to investigate what is happening when both bordering forces encounter and confront their different interests and understandings, we elaborate an analytical framework based on three approaches or dimensions that refer to different meanings attached to borders and bordering processes. These are analytical distinctions that help to both structure the discussion and generate hypotheses that will be tested in the case study analysis that follows. In practice, of course, the three dimensions are often interrelated in complex ways. The first dimension is functional and relates to the classic vision of borders as dividing lines that are more or less open or closed. Whereas (re)bordering speaks to the control of movements 3 and flows (defining and enforcing who can pass and who cannot), debordering is characterized by the removal of border impediments allowing for crossings and interactions. Within this functional register, borders are usually conceived of as either barriers or interfaces (Ratti, 1993). But in a network vision of society where territorial borders

Load more